It really won't matter to the Repubs here whatever RINO Romney says, because they'll defend him regardless. But the breathtakingly derogatory comments Romney made in order to denigrate and demean nearly half of the American public who won't be voting for him, may outrage many who see this as an attack on people who as a percentage work in full time jobs at almost the same rate as Republicans and who might be any one of 3,000 millionaires who declared over $2.2 million a year in income and yet paid no income taxes at all.

Yes jazz...all that matters is how things can be characterized and twisted to fit the narrative. Facts don't matter. Reality doesn't matter. Only perceptions matter.

Obviously my post went over your head, again.

Perhaps this won't though. Romney went on Fox today and repeatedly stated Obama's for wealth redistribution and that he is against it. So watch this and tell me it's not wealth redistribution that Romney wants. I bet you can't and neither could our Repubs.-

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

From my perspective, Obama and Romney are like professional wrestlers. They're in the ring, all cameras and eyes are on them, and their primary goal is to put on a convincing show to make the spectators believe that they are in an epic struggle representing diametrically opposed sides.

The reality is that they both work for the same company, everything is scripted, the money all goes to the same place, and it doesn't really matter which one of them wins.

And what's really sad is that most people know it's all a big, elaborate deception, yet when people like Ron Paul point out the deception they are scoffed and ignored.

We want to be deceived. We want to be distracted. And this is just the latest in an endless barrage of distractions.

Yes, politicians say and do stupid things. Can we fix this country, please?

From my perspective, Obama and Romney are like professional wrestlers. They're in the ring, all cameras and eyes are on them, and their primary goal is to put on a convincing show to make the spectators believe that they are in an epic struggle representing diametrically opposed sides.

The reality is that they both work for the same company, everything is scripted, the money all goes to the same place, and it doesn't really matter which one of them wins.

And what's really sad is that most people know it's all a big, elaborate deception, yet when people like Ron Paul point out the deception they are scoffed and ignored.

We want to be deceived. We want to be distracted. And this is just the latest in an endless barrage of distractions.

Yes, politicians say and do stupid things. Can we fix this country, please?

They're bound to highlight their differences, just as when politicians from the same parties fight to be elected over the other. There's plenty in the Ryan plan that is very much different from Obama, you just feel it's not different enough.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Perhaps this won't though. Romney went on Fox today and repeatedly stated Obama's for wealth redistribution and that he is against it. So watch this and tell me it's not wealth redistribution that Romney wants. I bet you can't and neither could our Repubs.-

I don't doubt that Romney favors government-controlled wealth redistribution (just Obama does). He just favors a different distribution.

But, according to you, he's a RINO. If he's a RINO, then what is he really?

From my perspective, Obama and Romney are like professional wrestlers.... The reality is that they both work for the same company, everything is scripted, the money all goes to the same place, and it doesn't really matter which one of them wins. Yes, politicians say and do stupid things. Can we fix this country, please?

So, I assume you support secession of states, as that is the only possible solution. Large obstacles are not things the US government is design to solve through policy, and basically the entire system of law would need to be reconstructed, I do believe, in order to meet your ideology. Maybe you should write your own constitution as an exercise to determine what changes you think need to be enforced in a modern government (or lack thereof). It's not easy, but it's not really that hard, either.

Why do you consider it so reprehensible to assume that some group of people are "dependent on government?" Secondly, why do you think a person as analytical as Romney is would imply that 47% of people are unwashed masses when he obviously knows they are not? No, I think you need to stop looking for meaning where there isn't any -- being "dependent on government" can have many forms. One could make a sound argument that most of the US population is dependent on government, to some degree. The difference is that Republican voters tend not to want to be dependent on government. When I heard it, I actually thought it was a clever move in a campaign where Romney knows he can win just by getting the biggest percentage of his base to vote.

Why do you consider it so reprehensible to assume that some group of people are "dependent on government?" Secondly, why do you think a person as analytical as Romney is would imply that 47% of people are unwashed masses when he obviously knows they are not? No, I think you need to stop looking for meaning where there isn't any -- being "dependent on government" can have many forms. One could make a sound argument that most of the US population is dependent on government, to some degree. The difference is that Republican voters tend not to want to be dependent on government. When I heard it, I actually thought it was a clever move in a campaign where Romney knows he can win just by getting the biggest percentage of his base to vote.

He considers it reprehensible because there isn't any logic or math that can support his position. Thus he only has feelings. He will be offended because that is all that is left.

Why do you consider it so reprehensible to assume that some group of people are "dependent on government?" Secondly, why do you think a person as analytical as Romney is would imply that 47% of people are unwashed masses when he obviously knows they are not? No, I think you need to stop looking for meaning where there isn't any -- being "dependent on government" can have many forms. One could make a sound argument that most of the US population is dependent on government, to some degree. The difference is that Republican voters tend not to want to be dependent on government. When I heard it, I actually thought it was a clever move in a campaign where Romney knows he can win just by getting the biggest percentage of his base to vote.

He considers it reprehensible because there isn't any logic or math that can support his position. Thus he only has feelings. He will be offended because that is all that is left.

The "dependent on government" comment could certainly be defended as accurate, if a bit insensitive. Going on to say that they believe they are victims, that the government has a responsibility to care for them, they are entitled to healthcare, food, housing, you-name-it, cannot easily be defended objectively (he is making a blanket attribution of thoughts and motives) and I'm sure he wishes that he hadn't gone there. The "victims" characterization was probably the most ill-judged. Obviously that 47% (non-tax payers) he referred to includes many Republicans and Independents, so his suggestion that the demographic in question is a Democratic base that would not have voted for him anyway is clearly wrong. Hard to see how that will not cost him votes.

The "dependent on government" comment could certainly be defended as accurate, if a bit insensitive. Going on to say that they believe they are victims, that the government has a responsibility to care for them, they are entitled to healthcare, food, housing, you-name-it, cannot easily be defended objectively (he is making a blanket attribution of thoughts and motives) and I'm sure he wishes that he hadn't gone there. The "victims" characterization was probably the most ill-judged. Obviously that 47% (non-tax payers) he referred to includes many Republicans and Independents, so his suggestion that the demographic in question is a Democratic base that would not have voted for him anyway is clearly wrong. Hard to see how that will not cost him votes.

I don't believe anyone ever claimed that Republicans and Independents couldn't vote for President Obama nor be part of that 47%. If you do a search here muppetry, you will see I have started a few threads about Baby Boomers over the years. Regardless of party, I indict them as a generation of hypocrits. You don't go from the worlds greatest creditor to the world's greatest debtor in one generation and have anyone without blood on their hands.

The numbers don't lie and even with those who you think I'm in agreement with, folks like Jazz and MJ, we've had discussions well before this hit the airwaves about how many people are getting checks from the government, they are dependent and how they will treat any reduction in that or discussion of altering it as akin to assault. Regardless of party or affiliation, they want the free money to keep coming.

The "dependent on government" comment could certainly be defended as accurate, if a bit insensitive. Going on to say that they believe they are victims, that the government has a responsibility to care for them, they are entitled to healthcare, food, housing, you-name-it, cannot easily be defended objectively (he is making a blanket attribution of thoughts and motives) and I'm sure he wishes that he hadn't gone there. The "victims" characterization was probably the most ill-judged. Obviously that 47% (non-tax payers) he referred to includes many Republicans and Independents, so his suggestion that the demographic in question is a Democratic base that would not have voted for him anyway is clearly wrong. Hard to see how that will not cost him votes.

I don't believe anyone ever claimed that Republicans and Independents couldn't vote for President Obama nor be part of that 47%. If you do a search here muppetry, you will see I have started a few threads about Baby Boomers over the years. Regardless of party, I indict them as a generation of hypocrits. You don't go from the worlds greatest creditor to the world's greatest debtor in one generation and have anyone without blood on their hands.

The numbers don't lie and even with those who you think I'm in agreement with, folks like Jazz and MJ, we've had discussions well before this hit the airwaves about how many people are getting checks from the government, they are dependent and how they will treat any reduction in that or discussion of altering it as akin to assault. Regardless of party or affiliation, they want the free money to keep coming.

You are very adept at deflection. Let me try again, just for the fun of it. Romney thinks that the 47% of the electorate who don't pay taxes will never vote for him anyway. But that includes many Republicans. Of the other 53% who do pay taxes, which includes many Democrats, it will only take a few (< 6%) percent to vote for Obama to take him over 50%. In reality he will get far more than 6% of the tax payer vote.

So obviously Romney's reasoning is flawed - primarily because many non-taxpayers are, in fact, Republicans, who would be expected to vote for Romney and many taxpayers are Democrats and Independents who will vote for Obama. So either he has just labeled a large chunk of his own supporters as victims with a self-entitlement mentality, or he believes that he has already lost their votes and thus will lose this election by a huge margin.

It was a mistake, pure and simple. Not the observation that 47% don't pay income tax, but the subsequent social labeling. Possibly it was a comment that he thought would play well with his audience, and whether he believes it himself is hard to say, but it will hurt his image with some supporters and some independents, and quite likely harden a significant segment of the Democratic vote.

The "dependent on government" comment could certainly be defended as accurate, if a bit insensitive. Going on to say that they believe they are victims, that the government has a responsibility to care for them, they are entitled to healthcare, food, housing, you-name-it, cannot easily be defended objectively (he is making a blanket attribution of thoughts and motives) and I'm sure he wishes that he hadn't gone there. The "victims" characterization was probably the most ill-judged. Obviously that 47% (non-tax payers) he referred to includes many Republicans and Independents, so his suggestion that the demographic in question is a Democratic base that would not have voted for him anyway is clearly wrong. Hard to see how that will not cost him votes.

I don't believe anyone ever claimed that Republicans and Independents couldn't vote for President Obama nor be part of that 47%. If you do a search here muppetry, you will see I have started a few threads about Baby Boomers over the years. Regardless of party, I indict them as a generation of hypocrits. You don't go from the worlds greatest creditor to the world's greatest debtor in one generation and have anyone without blood on their hands.

The numbers don't lie and even with those who you think I'm in agreement with, folks like Jazz and MJ, we've had discussions well before this hit the airwaves about how many people are getting checks from the government, they are dependent and how they will treat any reduction in that or discussion of altering it as akin to assault. Regardless of party or affiliation, they want the free money to keep coming.

You are very adept at deflection. Let me try again, just for the fun of it. Romney thinks that the 47% of the electorate who don't pay taxes will never vote for him anyway. But that includes many Republicans. Of the other 53% who do pay taxes, which includes many Democrats, it will only take a few (< 6%) percent to vote for Obama to take him over 50%. In reality he will get far more than 6% of the tax payer vote.

So obviously Romney's reasoning is flawed - primarily because many non-taxpayers are, in fact, Republicans, who would be expected to vote for Romney and many taxpayers are Democrats and Independents who will vote for Obama. So either he has just labeled a large chunk of his own supporters as victims with a self-entitlement mentality, or he believes that he has already lost their votes and thus will lose this election by a huge margin.

It was a mistake, pure and simple. Not the observation that 47% don't pay income tax, but the subsequent social labeling. Possibly it was a comment that he thought would play well with his audience, and whether he believes it himself is hard to say, but it will hurt his image with some supporters and some independents, and quite likely harden a significant segment of the Democratic vote.

This isn't deflection. Obama plays group politics all the time. He writes off entire segments of the electorate. Do you think he was appealing to most religious voters with his pseudo endorsement of gay marriage? Do you think his employer mandate regarding contraception was aimed at men? Are you suggesting Obama has majorities in all voter demographic groups? When Obama constantly harps on the "rich" and "paying their fair share" is he being inclusive of everyone with those statements or is he pitting one group against another?

Obama's entire campaign has been about class and group warfare. It's only inappropriate when Mitt does it though.

The "dependent on government" comment could certainly be defended as accurate, if a bit insensitive. Going on to say that they believe they are victims, that the government has a responsibility to care for them, they are entitled to healthcare, food, housing, you-name-it, cannot easily be defended objectively (he is making a blanket attribution of thoughts and motives) and I'm sure he wishes that he hadn't gone there. The "victims" characterization was probably the most ill-judged. Obviously that 47% (non-tax payers) he referred to includes many Republicans and Independents, so his suggestion that the demographic in question is a Democratic base that would not have voted for him anyway is clearly wrong. Hard to see how that will not cost him votes.

I don't believe anyone ever claimed that Republicans and Independents couldn't vote for President Obama nor be part of that 47%. If you do a search here muppetry, you will see I have started a few threads about Baby Boomers over the years. Regardless of party, I indict them as a generation of hypocrits. You don't go from the worlds greatest creditor to the world's greatest debtor in one generation and have anyone without blood on their hands.

The numbers don't lie and even with those who you think I'm in agreement with, folks like Jazz and MJ, we've had discussions well before this hit the airwaves about how many people are getting checks from the government, they are dependent and how they will treat any reduction in that or discussion of altering it as akin to assault. Regardless of party or affiliation, they want the free money to keep coming.

You are very adept at deflection. Let me try again, just for the fun of it. Romney thinks that the 47% of the electorate who don't pay taxes will never vote for him anyway. But that includes many Republicans. Of the other 53% who do pay taxes, which includes many Democrats, it will only take a few (< 6%) percent to vote for Obama to take him over 50%. In reality he will get far more than 6% of the tax payer vote.

So obviously Romney's reasoning is flawed - primarily because many non-taxpayers are, in fact, Republicans, who would be expected to vote for Romney and many taxpayers are Democrats and Independents who will vote for Obama. So either he has just labeled a large chunk of his own supporters as victims with a self-entitlement mentality, or he believes that he has already lost their votes and thus will lose this election by a huge margin.

It was a mistake, pure and simple. Not the observation that 47% don't pay income tax, but the subsequent social labeling. Possibly it was a comment that he thought would play well with his audience, and whether he believes it himself is hard to say, but it will hurt his image with some supporters and some independents, and quite likely harden a significant segment of the Democratic vote.

This isn't deflection. Obama plays group politics all the time. He writes off entire segments of the electorate. Do you think he was appealing to most religious voters with his pseudo endorsement of gay marriage? Do you think his employer mandate regarding contraception was aimed at men? Are you suggesting Obama has majorities in all voter demographic groups? When Obama constantly harps on the "rich" and "paying their fair share" is he being inclusive of everyone with those statements or is he pitting one group against another?

Obama's entire campaign has been about class and group warfare. It's only inappropriate when Mitt does it though.

This really is quite pathetic. Are you completely incapable of responding to anything that doesn't fit your view? Every response you have made recently has ignored the subject and can be simply summarized by "Obama is worse". It's exhibition-grade deflection. If you want to discuss Obama's failings, that's fine, but this thread was about Romney's comments. If you don't want to discuss them then why are you here?

It is never a mistake to say that a party made up not of ideas and principles but of interest groups with their hands out screaming "gimme" isn't going to vote for someone who doesn't want to hand over other people's money just because it assures them of their vote. Be snotty, be upset, be whatever emotion you want to be. The reality is the government borrows a trillion a year and they are doing so in part because nearly half pay nothing and nearly half take something. Could there be some overlap between those who give and receive? Of course but dependency is a huge issue and they aren't going to vote for someone who is going to take away, cut or do anything to their check.

Noting that it is near 50% and that it could make it almost impossible to elect someone who isn't going to engage in this sort of behavior doesn't make what Mitt Romney said bad or wrong. It means as a country we are nearly done. We are borrowing a trillion dollars a year. We've gone through two credit rating downgrades. We have borrowed 100% of our GDP and are well on our way to 200% of GDP. Everyone's living standards will fall DRAMATICALLY and no lie or program can change those facts.

It is never a mistake to say that a party made up not of ideas and principles but of interest groups with their hands out screaming "gimme" isn't going to vote for someone who doesn't want to hand over other people's money just because it assures them of their vote. Be snotty, be upset, be whatever emotion you want to be. The reality is the government borrows a trillion a year and they are doing so in part because nearly half pay nothing and nearly half take something. Could there be some overlap between those who give and receive? Of course but dependency is a huge issue and they aren't going to vote for someone who is going to take away, cut or do anything to their check.

Noting that it is near 50% and that it could make it almost impossible to elect someone who isn't going to engage in this sort of behavior doesn't make what Mitt Romney said bad or wrong. It means as a country we are nearly done. We are borrowing a trillion dollars a year. We've gone through two credit rating downgrades. We have borrowed 100% of our GDP and are well on our way to 200% of GDP. Everyone's living standards will fall DRAMATICALLY and no lie or program can change those facts.

And there it is - a perfect, seamless transition from tu quoque to strawman. You are a veritable living, breathing logical fallacy factory. At least I assume that you made these all yourself, rather than using pre-owned, recycled versions from your favorite "news" outlet. That would be terribly disappointing, and I'm afraid I don't follow that august organization's output closely enough to be sure.

The polling by Gallup show that Romney's 47% lines have cost him dearly with Independents-

"But independents -- voters who are, by definition, less fixed in their partisanship -- tilt toward the "less likely" (to vote for Romney) over the "more likely" view by a 29% to 15% margin -- although more than half say Romney's comments make no difference."

It is never a mistake to say that a party made up not of ideas and principles but of interest groups with their hands out screaming "gimme" isn't going to vote for someone who doesn't want to hand over other people's money just because it assures them of their vote. Be snotty, be upset, be whatever emotion you want to be. The reality is the government borrows a trillion a year and they are doing so in part because nearly half pay nothing and nearly half take something. Could there be some overlap between those who give and receive? Of course but dependency is a huge issue and they aren't going to vote for someone who is going to take away, cut or do anything to their check.

Noting that it is near 50% and that it could make it almost impossible to elect someone who isn't going to engage in this sort of behavior doesn't make what Mitt Romney said bad or wrong. It means as a country we are nearly done. We are borrowing a trillion dollars a year. We've gone through two credit rating downgrades. We have borrowed 100% of our GDP and are well on our way to 200% of GDP. Everyone's living standards will fall DRAMATICALLY and no lie or program can change those facts.

So you agree with Romney that the big problem in America is that too many people don't pay enough taxes?

It is never a mistake to say that a party made up not of ideas and principles but of interest groups with their hands out screaming "gimme" isn't going to vote for someone who doesn't want to hand over other people's money just because it assures them of their vote. Be snotty, be upset, be whatever emotion you want to be. The reality is the government borrows a trillion a year and they are doing so in part because nearly half pay nothing and nearly half take something. Could there be some overlap between those who give and receive? Of course but dependency is a huge issue and they aren't going to vote for someone who is going to take away, cut or do anything to their check.

Noting that it is near 50% and that it could make it almost impossible to elect someone who isn't going to engage in this sort of behavior doesn't make what Mitt Romney said bad or wrong. It means as a country we are nearly done. We are borrowing a trillion dollars a year. We've gone through two credit rating downgrades. We have borrowed 100% of our GDP and are well on our way to 200% of GDP. Everyone's living standards will fall DRAMATICALLY and no lie or program can change those facts.

And there it is - a perfect, seamless transition from tu quoque to strawman. You are a veritable living, breathing logical fallacy factory. At least I assume that you made these all yourself, rather than using pre-owned, recycled versions from your favorite "news" outlet. That would be terribly disappointing, and I'm afraid I don't follow that august organization's output closely enough to be sure.

The premise of the entire thread is a strawman. Claiming what Romney said cannot be objectively defended is nonsense because Romney spoke with facts so it is defended simply by noting it is fact and not opinion. Declaring it will cost him votes, there isn't a way to prove that. We can speculate or engage in conjecture. You clearly don't like my conjecture and now you've lost your temper. Don't worry, you aren't the first and you won't be the last.

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

It is never a mistake to say that a party made up not of ideas and principles but of interest groups with their hands out screaming "gimme" isn't going to vote for someone who doesn't want to hand over other people's money just because it assures them of their vote. Be snotty, be upset, be whatever emotion you want to be. The reality is the government borrows a trillion a year and they are doing so in part because nearly half pay nothing and nearly half take something. Could there be some overlap between those who give and receive? Of course but dependency is a huge issue and they aren't going to vote for someone who is going to take away, cut or do anything to their check.

Noting that it is near 50% and that it could make it almost impossible to elect someone who isn't going to engage in this sort of behavior doesn't make what Mitt Romney said bad or wrong. It means as a country we are nearly done. We are borrowing a trillion dollars a year. We've gone through two credit rating downgrades. We have borrowed 100% of our GDP and are well on our way to 200% of GDP. Everyone's living standards will fall DRAMATICALLY and no lie or program can change those facts.

So you agree with Romney that the big problem in America is that too many people don't pay enough taxes?

Absolutely I believe the tax base is too small and I have criticized both Republicans in general and Bush specifically for removing people from the tax rolls. Everyone ought to have skin in the game. I've also said that letting the Bush tax cuts expire won't hurt the economy. Obama could have had his tax increase by doing absolutely nothing. If what he contended, that the massive majority of the Bush tax cuts went to the rich, then he could have had an 90% solution by doing nothing. Instead he clearly wanted to play class warfare with it and use it for election fuel.

I don't doubt that Romney favors government-controlled wealth redistribution (just Obama does). He just favors a different distribution.

But, according to you, he's a RINO. If he's a RINO, then what is he really?

I don't think he's a RINO, I only described him as that because before he was elected the repub nominee that were a lot of posts here claiming he was, by the right. The repub party has become a pretty tight shop though. Now Romney's should be called Saint Romney.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

The premise of the entire thread is a strawman. Claiming what Romney said cannot be objectively defended is nonsense because Romney spoke with facts so it is defended simply by noting it is fact and not opinion. Declaring it will cost him votes, there isn't a way to prove that. We can speculate or engage in conjecture. You clearly don't like my conjecture and now you've lost your temper. Don't worry, you aren't the first and you won't be the last.

Absolutely I believe the tax base is too small and I have criticized both Republicans in general and Bush specifically for removing people from the tax rolls. Everyone ought to have skin in the game. I've also said that letting the Bush tax cuts expire won't hurt the economy. Obama could have had his tax increase by doing absolutely nothing. If what he contended, that the massive majority of the Bush tax cuts went to the rich, then he could have had an 90% solution by doing nothing. Instead he clearly wanted to play class warfare with it and use it for election fuel.

Taxes are paid more equally than you might think overall. The benefits of paying taxes also vary. For instance someone getting food stamps is not getting $500,000 like the farm did that hosted Romney's announcement that he was running for the Repub nominee for president.

Are you or where you in favour of Cain's 999 tax plan? That would make this graph much less even-

Remember too that those two bottom quintiles own combined just 0.3% of America's wealth. The top 1% own about 40%.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Taxes are paid more equally than you might think overall. The benefits of paying taxes also vary. For instance someone getting food stamps is not getting $500,000 like the farm did that hosted Romney's announcement that he was running for the Repub nominee for president.

Are you or where you in favour of Cain's 999 tax plan? That would make this graph much less even-

Remember too that those two bottom quintiles own combined just 0.3% of America's wealth. The top 1% own about 40%.

I really don't believe you desired to embarass yourself in this fashion Hands because you just justified everything Mitt Romney and Republicans have been saying. Your graph shows that the rich pay their fair share. It shows that the deficits aren't cause by the rich earning income and somehow ducking out on paying their share of the taxes.

I really don't believe you desired to embarass yourself in this fashion Hands because you just justified everything Mitt Romney and Republicans have been saying. Your graph shows that the rich pay their fair share. It shows that the deficits aren't cause by the rich earning income and somehow ducking out on paying their share of the taxes.

That means the problem isn't revenue but spending.

No fucking kidding! I can't believe he just did that!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Taxes are paid more equally than you might think overall.

Then the Democrats/"liberals"/"progressives"/leftists have been lying to us all this time?

Remember too that those two bottom quintiles own combined just 0.3% of America's wealth. The top 1% own about 40%.

I really don't believe you desired to embarass yourself in this fashion Hands because you just justified everything Mitt Romney and Republicans have been saying. Your graph shows that the rich pay their fair share. It shows that the deficits aren't cause by the rich earning income and somehow ducking out on paying their share of the taxes.

That means the problem isn't revenue but spending.

Everyone pays their fair share of taxes on their declared income. The difference with the very wealthy is that the majority of their income is not declared.

Perhaps this won't though. Romney went on Fox today and repeatedly stated Obama's for wealth redistribution and that he is against it. So watch this and tell me it's not wealth redistribution that Romney wants. I bet you can't and neither could our Repubs.-

Romney is very much in favor of wealth redistribution - as was Bush - in which the nation's wealth is redistributed by funneling it towards the very wealthiest élites... namely, their base: the "haves and the have mores".

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

It is never a mistake to say that a party made up not of ideas and principles but of interest groups with their hands out screaming "gimme" isn't going to vote for someone who doesn't want to hand over other people's money just because it assures them of their vote. Be snotty, be upset, be whatever emotion you want to be. The reality is the government borrows a trillion a year and they are doing so in part because nearly half pay nothing and nearly half take something. Could there be some overlap between those who give and receive? Of course but dependency is a huge issue and they aren't going to vote for someone who is going to take away, cut or do anything to their check.

Noting that it is near 50% and that it could make it almost impossible to elect someone who isn't going to engage in this sort of behavior doesn't make what Mitt Romney said bad or wrong. It means as a country we are nearly done. We are borrowing a trillion dollars a year. We've gone through two credit rating downgrades. We have borrowed 100% of our GDP and are well on our way to 200% of GDP. Everyone's living standards will fall DRAMATICALLY and no lie or program can change those facts.

And there it is - a perfect, seamless transition from tu quoque to strawman. You are a veritable living, breathing logical fallacy factory. At least I assume that you made these all yourself, rather than using pre-owned, recycled versions from your favorite "news" outlet. That would be terribly disappointing, and I'm afraid I don't follow that august organization's output closely enough to be sure.

The premise of the entire thread is a strawman. Claiming what Romney said cannot be objectively defended is nonsense because Romney spoke with facts so it is defended simply by noting it is fact and not opinion. Declaring it will cost him votes, there isn't a way to prove that. We can speculate or engage in conjecture. You clearly don't like my conjecture and now you've lost your temper. Don't worry, you aren't the first and you won't be the last.

I assume that you mean that the thread's premise was a strawman because of the title, and you would be correct, but that mischaracterizes the subsequent posts. There was no strawman element to my posts, the contents of which you have studiously avoided addressing.

Quote:

Claiming what Romney said cannot be objectively defended is nonsense because Romney spoke with facts so it is defended simply by noting it is fact and not opinion.

As I pointed out, but you ignored of course, his comment that 47% pay no taxes is both factually correct and defensible. His additional comments that this same 47% believes that they are victims, have self-entitlement, and would never vote for him are obviously neither factual nor defensible. If you would like to challenge the simple reasoning that I used to demonstrate that they were incorrect and that his arguments were flawed, then great, we can discuss it. If you prefer just to dismiss it as nonsense then presumably the reader may assume that you cannot.

I made no effort to prove that this would cost Romney votes - all I did was point out that insulting a significant number of his supporters and independents, who happen to be in that 47% demographic, by calling them self-entitled victims seemed likely to have that effect. Perhaps you could enlighten us why that is incorrect - or is this another of those "you can't prove it so I'm not interested in hearing about it" situations? Maybe those lazy bums just needed a kick up the ass and they will be grateful for his down-to-earth honest assessment of them.

As for your conjecture, that would be that the country is ruined? If so, I haven't commented on it because it was not the topic of the conversation, at least until you changed the subject. But, now that you mention it, correct - I disagree. And while it's an interesting card to try to play, sorry, but no one is losing their temper with you - we are all being very patient and understanding. It's wonderful practice for arguing with recalcitrant students.

Why do you consider it so reprehensible to assume that some group of people are "dependent on government?" Secondly, why do you think a person as analytical as Romney is would imply that 47% of people are unwashed masses when he obviously knows they are not? No, I think you need to stop looking for meaning where there isn't any -- being "dependent on government" can have many forms. One could make a sound argument that most of the US population is dependent on government, to some degree. The difference is that Republican voters tend not to want to be dependent on government. When I heard it, I actually thought it was a clever move in a campaign where Romney knows he can win just by getting the biggest percentage of his base to vote.

He considers it reprehensible because there isn't any logic or math that can support his position. Thus he only has feelings. He will be offended because that is all that is left.

The "dependent on government" comment could certainly be defended as accurate, if a bit insensitive. Going on to say that they believe they are victims, that the government has a responsibility to care for them, they are entitled to healthcare, food, housing, you-name-it, cannot easily be defended objectively (he is making a blanket attribution of thoughts and motives) and I'm sure he wishes that he hadn't gone there. The "victims" characterization was probably the most ill-judged. Obviously that 47% (non-tax payers) he referred to includes many Republicans and Independents, so his suggestion that the demographic in question is a Democratic base that would not have voted for him anyway is clearly wrong. Hard to see how that will not cost him votes.

That's the point. There is no paper trail hence they get away with it. I haven't kept track of the details. Romney was accused of having off shore assets. Was it ever denied or admitted?

So innuendo it is. Got it.

:rolleyes:

You are claiming it is a myth? You know it is common practice as does everyone else. I have resources that can put you in touch with the finest lawyers involved in the practice but why should I bother going to such effort for an anonymous forum poster. Google it if you are curious about how ones goes about sheltering your assets. Surely no rich people would ever consider something so unethical. What was I thinking?